zlacker

There's plenty of writing on that issue [1]. It makes a lot of sense to think of people being actually entitled to certain rights, especially in domains with network effects.

Btw, the Signal Foundation is a non-profit organization that benefits from community goodwill based on an open-source ethos. So people are critical when its software is closed source.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

>>neolog+(OP)
...it's software is open source.

>>rOOb85+jj
The reason is that this story is on HN is that the source was previously missing.

>>neolog+(OP)
I don't think a piece on gnu.org qualifies as "plenty of writing" and for sure doesn't count as basis for what you are entitled for :).

>>kreetx+w01
> I don't think a piece on gnu.org qualifies as "plenty of writing"

There are some links there to other pieces if you want to read more about it.

> for sure doesn't count as basis for what you are entitled for

I'm not claiming that moral authority flows from the Gnu brand; rather, they provide some information and reasoning which people can use to come to their own conclusions.

>>neolog+ko2
Most if not all of the links point to themselves..

It's ok to think that in an ideal world it would be like that, but argumenting as if you were entitled to the source because of it doesn't seem that it will persuade others. After all, if you aren't empathetic to the reality, how would you expect others be empathetic to you?

>>kreetx+kz2
The reality is pretty diverse. Plenty of people use mostly or only free software. I certainly do.